SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,GURGAON vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDNBHD,MALAYSIA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ) CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

SIME DARBY ENGINEERING SDN BHD,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-1, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

NATIONAL OIL WELL VARCO PTE. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VARCO INTERNATIONAL PTE. LTD),MAHARASHTRA vs. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1( INTERNATIONAL TAXATION ), DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VARCO INTERNATIONAL PTE LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

NATIONAL OILWELL VARCO PTE. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CI9RCLE-2, DEHRADUN

In the result, captioned appeals of the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode]

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), the time) limit available stands extended by another 12 months, and in the present case, the upper time limit for completion of assessment proceedings would expire on 30.09.2021. 18. In the present case, the final assessment order passed by the A.O. under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B dated 28.07.2022 is clearly beyond

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,SITARGANJ vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer 3(2)(2) (“TPO”) for determination of arm’s length price of the specified domestic transactions (“SDT”) / international transactions undertaken by the Applicant. 9. The TPO vide order dated 30 January 2019 held that the applicant has earned more than ordinary profits from its Section 80-IC business and proposed an adjustment of Rs.5

KARAM SAFETY PRIVATE LIMITED,UDHAM SINGH NAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3)(5), UDHAM SINGH NAGAR

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Stay Applications are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

Transfer Pricing Officer 3(2)(2) (“TPO”) for determination of arm’s length price of the specified domestic transactions (“SDT”) / international transactions undertaken by the Applicant. 9. The TPO vide order dated 30 January 2019 held that the applicant has earned more than ordinary profits from its Section 80-IC business and proposed an adjustment of Rs.5

M/S. THDC INDIA LIMITED,RISHIKESH vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Through Virtual Mode] [Assessment Year : 2017-18] M/S. Thdc India Ltd. Vs Pcit Ganga Bhawan, Aaykar Bhawan, Pragatipuram, Bye Pass 13 A, Subhash Road, Road, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand-249201 Pan-Aaact7905Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Jeetan Nagpal, Ca Shri Sanjay Arora, Ca & Ms. Pallavi, Ca Revenue By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.03.2022 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Dehradun [“Ld. Pcit”] Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising From The Assessment Order Dated 30.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Joint Venture Company Of Government Of India & Government Of Uttar Pradesh & Engaged In The Business Of Generation & Supply Of Hydro- Electric As Well As Wind Power & Also Engaged In Construction Of Hydro Power Plants. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.10.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 6,84,04,420/- After Claiming Deduction U/S 80-Ia Of The Act Of Inr 948,40,76,282/-. The Book Profits Was Shown At Inr 7,84,96,09,382/- & Mat Of Inr 1,67,52,32,236/- Was Paid. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & After Considering The Submissions Made, Total Income Was Assessed At Inr 4,63,78,80,698/- By Making Disallowance Out Of Deduction Claimed U/S 80-Ia Of The Act To The Extent Of Inr 211,15,54,378/- & Further Making Addition Of Inr 245,79,21,900/- On Account Of Late Payment Surcharge On Outstanding Debtors For The Period Of 10 Months Holding The Same As Taxable On Accrual Basis & No Deduction U/S 80Ia Was Allowed On Such Addition.

section 263 of the Act as the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 passed by the Ld. AO u/s 143(3) of the Act was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2.1. That the Hon'ble PCIT has failed to appreciate that the assessment proceedings were completed after adequate and proper enquiries were made

M/S. UJVN LIMITED,DEHRADUN vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DEHRADUN

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Video Conferencing) M/S. Ujvn Limited, Vs. The Principal Commissioner C/O. Mn/S. Rra Taxindia, Of Income, D-28, South Extension, Aayakar Bhawan, 13A, Part-I, Subhash Road, Dehradun New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacu6672R Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv Revenue By: Shri N. S. Jangpangi, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 24/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 15/09/2023

section 80IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. That having regard to facts & circumstances of the case, Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in holding that the appellant has inflated its income eligible for deduction u/s 801A by charging total quantity of energy exported @ 1.029/unit as against the approved rate of Rs. 0.805/unit

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION , DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

3 The Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law, by ignoring the Appellants Profit Attribution Report [duly maintained by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules")) which clearly demonstrates that the 1.68 percent (of the value

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

3 The Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law, by ignoring the Appellants Profit Attribution Report [duly maintained by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules")) which clearly demonstrates that the 1.68 percent (of the value

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M.E. LTD., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

3 The Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law, by ignoring the Appellants Profit Attribution Report [duly maintained by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules")) which clearly demonstrates that the 1.68 percent (of the value

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

3 The Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law, by ignoring the Appellants Profit Attribution Report [duly maintained by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules")) which clearly demonstrates that the 1.68 percent (of the value

ACIT, CIRCLE- II, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, DEHRADUN vs. WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS ME LTD., DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

3 The Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law, by ignoring the Appellants Profit Attribution Report [duly maintained by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules")) which clearly demonstrates that the 1.68 percent (of the value

WEATHERFORD OIL TOOLS M E LTD.,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 2, INTL. TAXATION, DEHRADUN

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

3 The Ld CIT(A) erred in facts and in law, by ignoring the Appellants Profit Attribution Report [duly maintained by the Appellant in accordance with provisions of section 92D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act') read with Rule 10D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 ("the Rules")) which clearly demonstrates that the 1.68 percent (of the value

AKRAM,ROORKEE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, HARIDWAR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra

10. I have duly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and I have already decided this issue i.e. whether tax 3 Akram can be levied on the assessee for purchase and sale of agricultural land in the case of Shri Ramesh Chand, one of the other 02 persons who sold the same land in question in his appeal